輔仁大學
學術資源網

記錄編號5985
狀態NC093FJU00462028
助教查核
索書號
學校名稱輔仁大學
系所名稱語言學研究所
舊系所名稱
學號491286087
研究生(中)吳婉真
研究生(英)Wan-chen Wu
論文名稱(中)中文間接指令語句的特徵
論文名稱(英)The Characteristics of Mandarin Indirect Directive Utterances
其他題名
指導教授(中)魏叔倫
指導教授(英)
校內全文開放日期
校外全文開放日期
全文不開放理由
電子全文送交國圖.
國圖全文開放日期.
檔案說明
電子全文
學位類別碩士
畢業學年度94
出版年
語文別英文
關鍵字(中)間接語言 中文指令語
關鍵字(英)
摘要(中)本論文主要利用問卷調查和John R. Searle的研究方法去探討中文間接指令語句(directives)的特徵。間接語言(indirect speech act) 是一種特殊的語言,當聽話者若不能了解說話者的間接語言時,對話就不能成功,這現象暗示著間接語言必定存著某些特徵,也是本論文的研究動機。Searle是研究間接語言最有名的學者之一,他認為間接語言中,要求他人做某事的指令語句是最好的研究目標,因為說話者往往基於禮貌的關係,不會坦率直接的說出指令語,本論文認同Searle的看法,故決定以中文的間接指令語句為研究目標,並且以Searle的理論和方法配合問卷調查作為研究方法,探討中文間接指令語句到底有何特徵。 經過分析之後,本論文發現中文間接指令語句存有七種類型,即著重聽者能力(competence of listeners),著重聽者意欲(inclination of listeners),著重聽者行為(work of listeners),著重說者意欲(inclination of talkers),說者省略話語 (abridgement of talkers),著重行為源由(causation of works),和結合直接語言(combination),每一種類型的名稱就代表那類型的特徵。著重聽者能力是一種真正的意思隱藏在質疑或陳述聽話者能力形式之下的間接指令語句,例如:可以幫我拿湯匙嗎?;著重聽者意欲,是一種真正的意思隱藏在質疑聽話者意欲形式之下的間接指令語句,例如:你不介意小聲點?;著重聽者行為是一種真正的意思隱藏在質疑或是陳述聽話者工作形式之下的間接指令語句,例如:你會別發出那麼可怕的聲音嗎?;著重說者意欲是一種真正的意思隱藏在陳述說話者意欲形式之下的間接指令語句,例如:我希望你現在就走;說者省略話語是一種真正的意思隱藏在陳述說話者省略形式之下的間接指令語句,例如人們要借過得時候會說:不好意思;著重行為源由是一種真正的意思隱藏在陳述或質疑行為源由形式之下的間接指令語句,例如:你最好現在走;結合直接語言是一種真正的意思隱藏在結合直接和間接語言形式之下的間接指令語句,例如:我可以求你別戴帽子嗎? 這七項中文間接指令語句的類型,除了對中文提供更深入的認識之外,也可以用來解釋英文間接指令語,這證明中英文的間接指令語句有相似性,而這樣的相似性也說明了兩項事實,第一是本論文的發現對於英語教學有一定的幫助,其次則是本論文的發現證明了語言一般性(language universals)的論點。
摘要(英)This study aims to analyze the characteristics of Mandarin indirect directive utterances via questionnaires and John R. Searle’s methodologies. Indirect speech is a distinctive usage of language. If the listener can not understand the talker’s indirect utterances, the communication is therefore ineffective. Such a phenomenon implies that indirect utterances have some distinctive characteristics that have subsequently aroused my motive for further investigation. J.R. Searle is one of the most famous scholars to have analyzed indirect speech. He is convinced that the best research objective of indirect speech act is indirect directives utterances in that the talker usually shows politeness by using indirect speech frequently. The following study agrees with Searle’s study and takes indirect directives in Mandarin as the research objective. The purpose of this study is to discuss characteristics of Mandarin indirect directives via Searle’s methodologies and questionnaires of native speakers. After analyzing, this study finds that there are seven types of indirect directives in Mandarin. They are competence of listeners, inclination of listeners, work of listeners, inclination of talkers, abridgement of talkers, causation of works, and combination. The name of each type also represents its characteristic of utterance. Competence of listeners is a kind of indirect directive in that the real meaning is hidden in the form of inquiring or stating listeners’ competence, for example: Keyi bang wo na tangchi ma? (Can you pass the tablespoon?; 可以幫我拿湯匙嗎?). Inclination of listeners is a kind of indirect directive in that the real meaning is hidden in the form of inquiring listeners’ inclination to do something, for example: Ni bu jieyi xiao sheng yidian? (Would you mind lowering down your voice?; 你不介意小聲一點?). Work of listeners describes a kind of indirect directive in that real meaning is hidden in the form of inquiring or stating what listeners’ would work or is working, for example: Ni hwei bie fachu na-mo kepa de shengyin ma? (Would you stop making that awful racket?; 你會別發出那麼可怕的聲音嗎?). Inclination of talkers describes a kind of indirect directive in that the real meaning is hidden in the form of stating talkers’ inclination , for example: Wo xiwang ni xianzai jiu zou (I would like you to go now ; 我希望你現在就走). Abridgement of talkers describes a kind of indirect directive in that the real meaning is hidden in the form in that talkers abridge for directing something. For example, when you want someone to let you pass, you would say: Bu hao yisi (Excuse me.; 不好意思) Causation of works describes a kind of indirect directive in that the real meaning is hidden in the form of stating or inquiring the causation of something, for example: Ni zui hao xianzai zou (You had better go now; 你最好現在走). Combination describes a kind of indirect directive in that the real meaning is hidden in the form of combining direct and indirect directives, for example: Wo keyi qiu ni bie dai maozi ma? (Might I plead you to take off your hat?; 我可以求你別戴帽子嗎?). Not only providing further understanding of Mandarin, these seven types also can be used to explain English indirect directives and hence, the indirect directives in Mandarin and English are very similar. Such similarity indicates the fact that the findings of this study can be helpful to TESOL and proves the argument of language universals.
論文目次Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Motivation 01 1.2 Objectives and Data collection 02 1.3 Significations 04 1.4 Organization of this thesis 05 Chapter Two: Literature Review 07 2.1 Speech Act 07 2.1-1 Austin─the definition of speech act and illocutionary act 07 2.1-2 Searle─illocutionary force 10 2.1-2.1 Adding new elements to Austin’s facets of speech act 10 2.1-2.2 Rewriting Austin’s classification of Illocutionary act 12 2.1-2.3 Proposing the idea of illocutionary force 15 2.1-3 The essence of speech act 16 2.2 Indirect Speech─further studies of speech act 17 2.2-1 Searle─the definition of indirect speech: primary and secondary illocutionary acts 18 2.2-2 Fraser─hedge performatives 20 2.2-3 Morgan─conventions of language and usage 22 2.2-4 Leech─illocutionary-verb fallacies 23 2.2-5 Levinson─conversation analytic approach 25 2.2-6 The essence of indirect speech 27 2.3 Summary 28 Chapter Three: Theoretical Background and Methodology 32 3.1 Introduction: foundations of indirect speech act 32 3.2 Searle’s speech act theories relevant to the indirect directives 33 3.2-1 Felicity condition and its components 34 3.2-2 Felicity condition of directives 35 3.2-3 The essence of theories on speech act 37 3.3 Theories relevant to interpreting indirect directives 39 3.3-1 Background knowledge with Inference 39 3.3-2 Cooperative conversation maxims 40 3.3-3 The essence of these relevant theories 41 3.4 Searle’s theories and methodology on indirect speech 42 3.4-1 The interpreting steps of indirect speech 42 3.4-2 The categories of indirect directives from interpreting step 44 3.4-3 The essence of theories on indirect speech 50 3.5 Summary 52 3.5-1 Brief introduction of theories in this chapter 52 3.5-2 The foundation of this study 54 Chapter Four: Analysis and Findings: Characteristics of Mandarin indirect directives 56 4.1 Introduction 56 4.1-1 The basic observation about Mandarin indirect directives 56 4.1-2 The presentation of questionnaire 57 4.1-3 The process of analysis 58 4.2 Characteristics of Mandarin indirect directives 59 4.2-1 Competence of listeners 59 4.2-1.1 The outcome of the questionnaire 59 4.2-1.2 Interpreting steps deducing real meaning 62 4.2-2 Inclination of listeners 67 4.2-2.1 The outcome of the questionnaire 67 4.2-2.2 Interpreting steps deducing real meaning 69 4.2-3 Work of listeners 74 4.2-3.1 The outcome of the questionnaire 74 4.2-3.2 Interpreting steps deducing real meaning 76 4.2-4 Inclination of talkers 82 4.2-4.1 The outcome of the questionnaire 82 4.2-4.2 Interpreting steps deducing real meaning 84 4.2-5 Abridgement of talkers 89 4.2-5.1 The outcome of the questionnaire 89 4.2-5.2 Interpreting steps deducing real meaning 91 4.2-6 Causation of works 93 4.2-6.1 The outcome of the questionnaire 93 4.2-6.2 Interpreting steps deducing real meaning 96 4.2-7 Combination 101 4.2-7.1 The outcome of the questionnaire 101 4.2-7.2 Interpreting steps deducing real meaning 104 4.3 Findings 109 4.3-1 Seven types of Mandarin indirect directives 109 4.3-2 Similarity on Mandarin and English indirect directive 113 4.4 Summary 115 Chapter Five Self-evaluation and Conclusion 122 5.1 Self-evaluation 122 5.2 Conclusion 125 Appendix A: The list of collected data in chapter four 138 Appendix B: The all figures of outcome of the questionnaire in chapter four 145 Appendix C: The questionnaire 149 Reference 154
參考文獻Reference Austin, J.L. (1961a) ‘Performative utterance’ in Austin (1961b), pp.233-252 Austin, J.L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Reprinted in 1975, Second edition. Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984) ‘Requests and apologies: A cross-culturalstudy of speech act realization patterns’; in Applied Linguistics 5, pp.196-212. Blum-Kulka, S. (1987) ‘Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different?’, in Journal of pragmatics 11, pp.131-146 Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989) ‘Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior’; in Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (eds.) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies; Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 123-173 Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies; in Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, S & Kasper, G. (1993) Interlanguage pragmatics; New York: Oxford University Press. Brouwer, D., Gerritsen, M. & DeHaan, D. (1979) ‘Speech differences between men and women: On the wrong track?’, in Language in Society 8 (1): 33-50 Brown P, & Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: some universals in language usage New York Cambridge University press Brown H.D. (2000) Principles of language learning and teaching, White Plains, NY : Longman Brown H.D. (2001) Teaching by principle: an interactive approach to language pedagogy, White Plains, NY: Longman Black, M. (1962) Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press. Bram, J.(1955) Language and Society. New York: Random House. Bellert, I. (1977) ‘On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs’; in Linguistic Inquiry 8.2: 337-51, RR. Bublitz, W. (1992) ‘Transferred negation and modality’, in Journal of Pragmatics 18, pp. 551-577. Barbe, K. (1995) Irony in context Amsterdam; Philadelphia, Pa.: J. Benjamins Pub. Chen, R. (1993) ‘Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers’, in Journal of Pragmatics 20: 49-75. Chao, Y. R. (1968) A Grammar of Spoken Chinese Taipei: Student Book. Cheng, R. L. (1983) Focus devices in Chinese, in Tang, T.C., Cheng, R.L. and Li, Y.C. (eds.), Studies in Chinese Syntax and Semantics; pp.53-102, Taipei: Student Book. Cohen, A. D. (1996). ‘Speech acts’; in McKay, S. L. and Hornberger, N. H. (ed.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching, Cambridge University. Clark, H. H. (1979). ‘Responding to indirect speech acts’, in Cognitive Psychology11, pp.430-477; New York: Academic Press. Clark, H.H. and Schunk, D. H. (1981) ‘Polite in requests: a rejoinder to Kemperand Thissen’; in Cognition 9, pp. 311-315. Cavell, S. (1976) Must We Mean What We Say? A Book of Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark and Clark (1977) ‘Plan for what to say’, in Psychology and Language: an introduction to psycholinguistics, pp. 237-258; New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Cruse, D.A.(2000) Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davison, A. (1975) ‘English Performatives,’ in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds) (1975) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press Dallmayr, F.R.(1984a) Language and Politics, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Decapua, A. and Huber, L.(1995) ‘‘If I were you…’: Advice in American English’, Multilingua, Journal of Cross Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 14:2, 117-32. Dascal, M.(1994) ‘Speech act theory and Gricean pragmatics’ in Taohatzidis (ed.), pp. 323-334. Ehrman, M. E.(1966) The Meanings of the Modals in Present-day English. The Hague: Mouton. Fraser, B.(1978) ‘Acquiring social competence in a second language’; in RELC Journal 9, pp.1-21. Fraser, B.(1990) ‘Perspectives on politeness’; in Journal of Pragmatics 14, pp.219-236. Finegan E. (1999) Language: its structure and use Fort Worth : Harcourt Brace College Publishers Gordon, D. and Lakoff, G. (1975) ‘Conversational Postulates,’ in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds) (1975) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press, pp.83-106. Geis M.L. (1995) Speech acts and conversational interaction Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press Gu, Y. (1990). ‘Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese’ Journal of Pragmatics14, 237-257. Grice P. (1975) ‘Logic and conversation’ in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics, vol.3, New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice (1989), pp.22-40. Also tobe found in Davis (ed.) (1994), pp. 305-315; Martinich (ed.) (1996), pp. 156-167; Harnish (ed.) (1994), pp. 57-73; Kasher (ed.) (1998), vol.4, pp.145-161. Grice P. (1978) ‘Further notes on logic and conversation’ in Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics 113-128, ed. by Cole P. Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice (1989), pp.41-57. Also found in Kasher (ed.) (1998), vol.4, pp.162-176. Grice, P (1989) Studies in the Way of Words, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Green, G.M. (1975) ‘Hedge Performative,’ in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds) (1975) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press Greenbreg J. H. (1966) Language universals: with special reference to feature hierarchies, The Hague: Mouton Hatch E. & Farhady H (1982) Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics Rowley, Mass: Newbury House Hatch, E.(1996) ‘Speech acts and speech events’, in Discourse and language education; Cambridge University Press. Holms, J. (1988b) ‘Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy’, in Journal of pragmatics 12: 445-465. Holtgraves, T.(1986) ‘Language Structure in Social Interaction:Perceptions of Direct and Indirect Speech Acts and Interactants Who Use Them’, in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp.305-314. Heringer, J. T. (1972) ‘Some grammatical correlates of felicity conditions and presuppositions’, in Working Papers in Linguistics II, iv-111, Columbus: The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics Heringer, J.H. (1978) Practical semantics: a study in the rules of speech and action The Hague, (Noordeinde 41) ; New York : Mouton Hymes, D. (1972) ‘On communicative competence’, in J. Pride & J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics, Harmonds worth: Penguin Books. Hymes, D. (1974) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Jacobson, S. (1978) On the Use, Meaning, and Syntax of English Preverbal Adverbs, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Kartunnen, L. (1972) ‘Possible and must’, in Syntax and Semantics I, pp.1-20, New York: Seminar Press. Lakoff, G & Johnson, M (1980) Metaphors we live by Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar Berkeley: University of California Press Lycan, W. G. (1984) Logical form in natural language Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Leech, G. N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics London: New York: Longman. Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics Cambridge University Press Lasnik, H. (1975) ‘On the Semantics of Negation’, in Hockney et al. (eds.), Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics, Lepore E, and Van Gulick, R. (1991) John Searle and his critics Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Liao, Chao-chih (1997). Comparing directives: American English, Mandarin and Taiwanese English. Crane. Lee-Wong, Song Mei. (1994). Imperative in Requests: Direct or Impolite observations from Chinese. Pragmatics, 4:4, 491-515. Liao, Chao-chih and Mary I. Bresnahan. (1996). A contrastive pragmatic study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language sciences. 18. Nos 3-4: 703-727. Morgan, J.L. (1978) ‘Two types of convention in indirect speech acts’, in Cole (1978:26-80) Manes and Wolfson (1981). The compliment formula. In F Coulmas. (eds.) Conversational routine. The Hague: Mouton. pp. 115-132. Meier, A. J. (1998). ‘Apologies: what do we know?’ International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18/2, 215-231 Olshtain, E. and L. Weinbach. 1993. Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka. eds. Interlanguage Pragmatics 108-122. New York: Oxford University Press. Olshtain, E. & Cohen, A. (1987) ‘Apology: A speech act set.’ In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (eds). Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. 18-35. Rowley, MA: Newbury Powell, Maya Jo. “Conception of Literal Meaning in Speech Act Theory." Philosophy and Rhetoric 18(1985): 133-157. Palmer, F. R. (1995) ‘Negation and the modals of possibility and necessity’, in Joan Bybee and Suzanne Fleischman (eds.) Modality in Grammar and Discourse; pp.453-471, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Peccei, J.S. (1999) Pragmatics London; New York: Routledge. Parker, F & Riley, K (2000) Linguistics for Non-Linguists: a primer with exercises Boston : Allyn and Bacon Sadock, J. M. (1974) Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press. Searle J.R. (1969) Speech Act: an essay in the philosophy of language Syndicative University of Cambridge. Searle J.R (1974) Philosophy of language Oxford: The Univ. Pr., c1974 Searle, J.R. (1975) ‘Indirect Speech Acts’, in S. Davis, (ed.) Pragmatics: A Reader, pp.265-277, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Searle J.R. (1975) ‘Indirect speech Acts’ in P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds) (1975) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press, pp.59-82. Searle, J.R. (1975a) ‘A taxonomy of illocutionary acts’, in K. Gunderson (ed.) Language, Mind and Knowledge. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, vol. 7, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (forthcoming), pp. 344-369. Reprinted in Martinich (ed.) (1996), pp. 168-182. Also to be found in Davis (eds) (1991), pp.265-277; Kasher (ed.) (1998), vol. 4, pp.639-657. Searle, J.R. (1976) ‘A classification of Illocutionary Acts’ in Language in society 5 Cambridge, Eng. [etc.] New York: Cambridge University Press Searle, J.R. (1979) Expression and meaning: studies in the theory of speech acts Cambridge, Eng.; New York: Cambridge University Press. Searle J.R., Kiefer, F. and Bierwisch, M. (eds.) (1980) Speech act theory and pragmatics Dordrecht, Holland; Boston: D. Reidel; Hingham, MA : sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Boston. Searle, J.R. (1983) Intentionality, An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J.R. (1985) Foundations of illocutionary logic Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press. Shih, Y.H. (1986) Conversational politeness and foreign language teaching, Taipei: Crane. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted in 1995. Second edition. Saeed, J.I. (1997) Semantics Oxford; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers. Teng, Shou-Hsin (1973). "Negation and Aspect in Chinese", Journal of Chinese Linguistics, vol.1, no.1, 14-37. Teng, Shou-Hsin (1974). "Negation in Chinese", Journal of Chinese Linguistics, vol. 2, no.2, 125-140. Takahashi, T. and Beebe, L.M. (1993) ‘Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction’, In S. Blum-Kulka and G. Kasper (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics, New York: Oxford University Press, pp.138-157. Tsohatzidis, S.L. (ed.) (1994) Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, London: Routledge. Thomas, J. (1995). Speech acts. Meaning in interaction: an introduction to pragmatics. Longman. Wierzbicka, A.1985. ‘Different cultures, different language, different speech acts: Polish vs. English’, in Journal of Pragmatics 9: 145-178, reprinted as Chapter 2 of Wierzbicka (1991) Cross-Culture Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction, Wolfson, N. (1984). Pretty is as pretty does: A speech act view of sex roles. Applied Linguistics 5 (3): 236-244. Yule, G. (1996) The study of language : an introduction Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York : Cambridge University Press
論文頁數159
附註
全文點閱次數
資料建置時間
轉檔日期
全文檔存取記錄
異動記錄M admin Y2008.M7.D3 23:17 61.59.161.35